Welcome

Welcome to the POZ/AIDSmeds Community Forums, a round-the-clock discussion area for people with HIV/AIDS, their friends/family/caregivers, and
others concerned about HIV/AIDS. Click on the links below to browse our various forums; scroll down for a glance at the most recent posts; or join in the
conversation yourself by registering on the left side of this page.

Privacy Warning: Please realize that these forums are open to all, and are fully searchable via Google and other search engines. If you are HIV positive
and disclose this in our forums, then it is almost the same thing as telling the whole world (or at least the World Wide Web). If this concerns you, then do not use a
username or avatar that are self-identifying in any way. We do not allow the deletion of anything you post in these forums, so think before you post.

The information shared in these forums, by moderators and members, is designed to complement, not replace, the relationship between an individual and his/her own
physician.

All members of these forums are, by default, not considered to be licensed medical providers. If otherwise, users must clearly define themselves as such.

Forums members must behave at all times with respect and honesty. Posting guidelines, including time-out and banning policies, have been established by the moderators
of these forums. Click here for “Am I Infected?” posting guidelines. Click here for posting guidelines pertaining to all other POZ/AIDSmeds community forums.

We ask all forums members to provide references for health/medical/scientific information they provide, when it is not a personal experience being discussed. Please
provide hyperlinks with full URLs or full citations of published works not available via the Internet. Additionally, all forums members must post information which are
true and correct to their knowledge.

Craig, was not arrested for being gay... he was arrested for LEWD behaviour... and an innocent man would not plead GUILTY to an offense if he was not...

Not in defense of him, but really, what exactly is "lewd" about tapping your foot and waving your hand under a stall? Its not like he waved his pecker under the stall or communicated verbally that he wanted sex.

Add me to the group that never had sex in public toilet, just the smell would gross me out. I'm curious though, how exactly could you "do" anything that wouldn't be visible to anyone else walking by the stall?

What is with so many never having done it in a public bathroom stall...the nexty thing you'll all be telling me is that I was the only one to do it in a confessional booth at a church, or pressed up against a window over times square or on a subway car.

I gave my first blow job in the bathroom of a mormon church (thanks for dragging me there, ma...), and I learned the ropes in public bathrooms and the local park. Where else could I go at 15 years old?

Northernguy, I stated what he was arrested for LEWD behaviour... I did not go into DETAILS as to his actions... nor did the media... but, I am sure I can imagine what possibly happened... why not check out the official police report? It was enough for a Senator with 25 years experience in the LAW and making of legislation... this is not an uneducated man... plus he has a history not a conviction... he's been able to slide through the cracks in the past... I stated he was arrested for LEWD behaviour... who said he did not show his pecker... stroke his pecker... get on his knees... perform oral sex... masterbate? so alot more is in evidence for someone in his position and Who knows the LAW... and he still PLEADED GUILTY? so theres more to the story than the media is presenting... only with the official police report are the actions that led to his arrest. The police maybe doing him a favor in summerization listing as (LEWD) than leaking all the facts and evidence... to the media... all I can say is there was enough evidence for the man who legislates and knows his Rights to PLEAD GUILTY...

A perfect example of "he said, he said." I just heard the audio tape of the "after incident" interview with the Senator and it sounded to me as if the cop was doing his best to convince the Senator that because his foot touched his, that that was a a proposition for him to have sex. SEX, IN a crowded airport bathroom. PUH_LEASE.

Remember, the cop is the one that is paid to lurk in a bathroom stall to accuse someone of lewd behavior. And we all know how they love their "quotas." This will probably be the end of Craig's career, but IMO it is a sad day when one can be "accused" of a crime by only the word of one individual without "hard" evidence. Can you say, Tawana Brawley or the Duke Lacrosse rape? The Senator was an idiot for accepting a guilty plea, so maybe it's best that he does go for being that dumb!

Logged

Due to current economic conditions, the light at the end of the tunnel has been temporarily turned off!

"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

A perfect example of "he said, he said." I just heard the audio tape of the "after incident" interview with the Senator and it sounded to me as if the cop was doing his best to convince the Senator that because his foot touched his, that that was a a proposition for him to have sex. SEX, IN a crowded airport bathroom. PUH_LEASE.

Remember, the cop is the one that is paid to lurk in a bathroom stall to accuse someone of lewd behavior. And we all know how they love their "quotas." This will probably be the end of Craig's career, but IMO it is a sad day when one can be "accused" of a crime by only the word of one individual without "hard" evidence. Can you say, Tawana Brawley or the Duke Lacrosse rape? The Senator was an idiot for accepting a guilty plea, so maybe it's best that he does go for being that dumb!

Plus he didn't really actually sign off on the guilty plea until two weeks ago, so that gave him over a month to retain counsel if he had wished to. Frankly if he had done so he could have afforded someone who would have gotten him out of the toe tapping EASILY. But he didn't because he was afraid of it coming out in the media.

Plus he didn't really actually sign off on the guilty plea until two weeks ago, so that gave him over a month to retain counsel if he had wished to. Frankly if he had done so he could have afforded someone who would have gotten him out of the toe tapping EASILY. But he didn't because he was afraid of it coming out in the media.

A perfect example of "he said, he said." I just heard the audio tape of the "after incident" interview with the Senator and it sounded to me as if the cop was doing his best to convince the Senator that because his foot touched his, that that was a a proposition for him to have sex. SEX, IN a crowded airport bathroom. PUH_LEASE.

Remember, the cop is the one that is paid to lurk in a bathroom stall to accuse someone of lewd behavior.

The cop was assigned to do that job because of complaints of sexual activity in that particular bathroom.

Regardless, I submit that if you are stupid enough to plead guilty to a crime you claim you didn't commit and you have the resources at your disposal that a Senator does, then perhaps you are too stupid to be a Senator in the first place.

Actually that is not true and you must lead a very sheltered life if you really believe that.

Craig's motive in pleading guilty is clear - he calculated that if he pled guilty to a lesser charge and paid a fine there would be no publicity and that there was a chance that nobody would ever find out.

Based on the police report, I am pretty sure that if he had hired a hot shot attorney and gone to trial he would have been found not guilty, *but* that course of action would have resulted in a lot more publicity and the trial would have been a media circus which clearly was something he wanted to avoid at all costs.

Prosecutors understand this, and play games like this all the time with suspects - "just plead guilty to this and everything else will go away" - and sometimes the suspect takes that option regardless of whether or not they are guilty.

What really sickens me about this whole case (other than Craig, himself, who is obviously a real creep) is the fake moral outrage of his Republican colleagues over what is an extremely minor (and, iin this case, victimless) offence.

How about all of the members of Congress who have convictions for drunk driving - arguably a *much* more serious offence with the potential to cause serious injury or death? Lets get rid of all of them first!

Who picks up toilet paper from the floor in the first place. Dead give away that the Good Senator is a liar.

Then there's the fact that in the audio tape Craig accuses the policeman of soliciting HIM. Uh... hello, is this thing on? If you didn't really know about trolling for sex in restrooms you'd just have said you had no idea what was going on.

Actually that is not true and you must lead a very sheltered life if you really believe that.

Craig's motive in pleading guilty is clear - he calculated that if he pled guilty to a lesser charge and paid a fine there would be no publicity and that there was a chance that nobody would ever find out.

Based on the police report, I am pretty sure that if he had hired a hot shot attorney and gone to trial he would have been found not guilty, *but* that course of action would have resulted in a lot more publicity and the trial would have been a media circus which clearly was something he wanted to avoid at all costs.

Prosecutors understand this, and play games like this all the time with suspects - "just plead guilty to this and everything else will go away" - and sometimes the suspect takes that option regardless of whether or not they are guilty.

Well, that tends to be true of people who can't afford to have attorney on retainer, but I have a hard time believing a prosecutor would even offer the plea deal to a United States senator if he didn't think he have a pretty solid case to prosecute.

I still submit that if a senator is so stupid as to plead guilty to the lesser charge on the notion that he had a better chance of it never becoming public, then Idaho needs better representation than what Craig had to offer.

A perfect example of "he said, he said." I just heard the audio tape of the "after incident" interview with the Senator and it sounded to me as if the cop was doing his best to convince the Senator that because his foot touched his, that that was a a proposition for him to have sex. SEX, IN a crowded airport bathroom. PUH_LEASE.

Remember, the cop is the one that is paid to lurk in a bathroom stall to accuse someone of lewd behavior. And we all know how they love their "quotas." This will probably be the end of Craig's career, but IMO it is a sad day when one can be "accused" of a crime by only the word of one individual without "hard" evidence. Can you say, Tawana Brawley or the Duke Lacrosse rape? The Senator was an idiot for accepting a guilty plea, so maybe it's best that he does go for being that dumb!

I watched this on CNN at the gym and they had the captions on for it - so I got to read the whole transcript without hearing the voices or tone used.

At first I absolutely was agreeing with this stance on how it went down and started to see it as entrapment that went too far...but then the whole thing about the left hand/right hand thing sort of sold it to me that the senator was really full of shit and he wasn't "innocent" per se.

What I really had an issue with though was the cop, who was engaging in entrapment for what I consider a harmless crime (if it is technically one) start moralizing the senator about how he expected more from him...

Yeah the senator is a hypocrite and deserves what he is getting, but the cop can go fuck himself in my opinion - I think he probably gets off on the whole thing to be honest (as do I think most cops who engage in entrapment)

Well, that tends to be true of people who can't afford to have attorney on retainer, but I have a hard time believing a prosecutor would even offer the plea deal to a United States senator if he didn't think he have a pretty solid case to prosecute.

I still submit that if a senator is so stupid as to plead guilty to the lesser charge on the notion that he had a better chance of it never becoming public, then Idaho needs better representation than what Craig had to offer.

Prosecutors offer plea deals all the time as a way to expedite cases through the system and improve their conviction statistics.

I agree Craig is clearly an idiot, but a quick survey of his congressional colleagues suggests that the American people do not regard that as being a fatal flaw in their representatives.

What I was really reacting to, however, was pozguy75's blanket statement that "innocent people don't plead guilty".

and so many more i cant recall now.and just for the record, I have never....repeat NEVER touched another man's shoe with my own whilst crusiing for an under the wall BJ.according to this self proclaimed tea room expert, all evidence says the good senator is as guilty as he is a homophobic bigot!!wow and i used to think the hottest tea room encounters were with homophobic bigots.... i do have to say, this one just does not meet those hottness guidelines............

Yes...but do you really consider that a relevant argument in this particular situation?

Sorry, I didn't intend this to distract you from discussing more "relevant" topics.

I just saw someone make a blanket statement "innocent people don't plead guilty" that I felt was factually inaccurate and I wanted to point that out.

I'm not sure that either the original statement or my opinion of it is particularly "relevant".

As I already said, I believe that in Craig's case he simply took a gamble on an option which he thought that would result in minimal publicity - and lost ...

Not that it matters, but I believe that:

- Craig is technically guilty- the offence with which he is charged is ridiculous and probably shouldn't exist- even though I believe that he is guilty a good lawyer could easily have got him acquitted at trial

About the strangest place I ever had sex was on the bridge of the ship I served on when I was in the service.

And that wasn't my idea. This hunky signalman that all the "girls" on the ship thought was straight was pursuing me for about two months before I realized that it was oddly coincidental that he was always in the galley at the same time I was eating, always in the tv lounge at the same time as me, always in the weight room at the same time as me, always taking a shower at the same time as me even though we worked in totally different departments and worked different hours.

But he did have a key to the bridge when we were in port and what the captain doesn't know about what happened in his chair wouldn't hurt him.

But bathrooms...no thank you. I don't even want to have sex in my own bathroom.

Sorry, I didn't intend this to distract you from discussing more "relevant" topics.

I just saw someone make a blanket statement "innocent people don't plead guilty" that I felt was factually inaccurate and I wanted to point that out.

I'm not sure that either the original statement or my opinion of it is particularly "relevant".

No need to get bitchy, dear.

My point was do you think your statement is really relevant in a case with a rich and powerful Senator who goes out of his way to publicly speak out about homosexuality and therefore would have every reason to not be seen as engaging in behavior that would make him look like he wanted to suck a dick, and who didn't sign the guilt papers until a few weeks after the incident?

My point was do you think your statement is really relevant in a case with a rich and powerful Senator who goes out of his way to publicly speak out about homosexuality and therefore would have every reason to not be seen as engaging in behavior that would make him look like he wanted to suck a dick, and who didn't sign the guilt papers until a few weeks after the incident?

I guess I thought that I had already answered that but, since you ask:

"yes", because I think that his decision to plead guilty was a calculated attempt on his part to dispose of this issue in a way that would result in the minimum amount of publicity possible and didn't have much to do with whether or not he was actually guilty.

I guess I thought that I had already answered that but, since you ask:

"yes", because I think that his decision to plead guilty was a calculated attempt on his part to dispose of this issue in a way that would result in the minimum amount of publicity possible and didn't have much to do with whether or not he was actually guilty.

I find it beyond comprehension to believe that a man who talks about how bad gays are would plead guilty to anything that would connect him to being gay. No. it defies logic and reason and also you are ignoring the fact that he signed the guilty plea two weeks AFTER the incident so he already knew at this time there was no media involvement so your argument makes no sense.

I find it beyond comprehension to believe that a man who talks about how bad gays are would plead guilty to anything that would connect him to being gay. No. it defies logic and reason and also you are ignoring the fact that he signed the guilty plea two weeks AFTER the incident so he already knew at this time there was no media involvement so your argument makes no sense.

I see it differently.

The fact that there was no media involvement after 2 weeks was only going to last if he took the plea bargain and sent his check in the mail - so it looked like a good deal.

If he had pled not guilty a court date would have been scheduled, hearings and a trial would have been held and since these would all be matters of public record there would be many more opportunities for someone to notice and that is what he wanted to avoid.

(also I suspect that he was very well aware that if this thing ever came to light there was lots more dirt that would come out on him and he wanted to avoid that at all costs)

The fact that there was no media involvement after 2 weeks was only going to last if he took the plea bargain and sent his check in the mail - so it looked like a good deal.

If he had pled not guilty a court date would have been scheduled, hearings and a trial would have been held and since these would all be matters of public record there would be many more opportunities for someone to notice and that is what he wanted to avoid.

(also I suspect that he was very well aware that if this thing ever came to light there was lots more dirt that would come out on him and he wanted to avoid that at all costs)

and you think that- in this day and age- a guilty agreement would've slid under the radar?

Bored I guess, I read the written transcript of the arrest of Senator Larry Craig. Here is a quote from arresting officer Karsnia while interviewing Craig. What's he trying to say here? He expects this out of black men, but not from respectable old white guys. I think this is the pervasive attitude among the police, and that troubles me.

KARSNIA: I just, I just, I guess, I guess I'm gonna say I'm just disappointed in you, sir. I'm just really am. I expect this from the guy that we get out of the hood. I mean, people vote for you.